A Look At The Early Mock Drafts For A Glimpse Of The Rams' Future

[fearsomefour]

Not for me. I prefer Robinson to Matthews because of his power and potential. And what does Hageman add to this team that we don't already have in Brockers and Langford? They're practically the same type of player and Brockers and Langford are both still pretty young.

Understandable. I am not so totally sold on Matthews that if a trade down came I wouldnt take it, I would. I list Matthews because he is the generally the highest rated guy at the position. Cases can be made for other guys.
Langford to me is a solid player. Brockers is good and has not reached his potential. What really is missing upfront at DT (in my opinion) is a guy who can penetrate and make plays in the passing game. Langford was bad for stretches in the run game earlier in the year, getting turned and redirected. Later in the year he played (as did the run D as a whole) much better.
Just my perspective, but, I believe the front 7 has the opportunity to be exceptional. A conversation could be had as to the best way to make this happen....Clowney replacing Long, adding a playing making OLB to replace Dunbar or drafting a stud DT to complete the D line. I am saying that drafting LT, DT is ideal to me in the sense of the approach to the draft. Starts and ends up front and the Rams can improve both areas. I am not infatuated with the idea of a "projectable" WR and or a CB who will end up being a nickle back year one. With worst case (no trade down) 2 picks in the top 13 the Rams need to add guys who are going to start for a long time at key positions. To me it doesnt get much more key than LT and DT.

 

[fearsomefour]

I remember being so so stoked when we drafted Phillips. He was supposed to be a game changer.

Change the game he did.

You no longer see guys with that much baggage getting drafted that high anymore.

Yeah me too. He was so exciting in college. But he was a true straight line runner. If he got a seem he was gone. It is amazing that smart professionals who spends hour and weeks and months evaluating players can draft a guy so high with such big holes in his game....not to mention his soul. Vermeil gave him every tool to hang around. Rich Brooks, who was fun as a HC, drafted like he was recruiting at Oregon still.

 

[laramsoriginal]

Big holes to fill at OG, Safety, CB. I think drafting a DT in the first round to add depth would be a big mistake.

 

[fearsomefour]

Big holes to fill at OG, Safety, CB. I think drafting a DT in the first round to add depth would be a big mistake.

As do I. It would be to start.

 

[max]

It all starts up front I like both Matthews & Robinson and the only way the Rams are going to win in the NFC West is to be able to hold up at the point of attack. All three defenses 49ers, Seahawks & Cardinals are awesome and the Rams defense should get better too even though they still have Tim Walton.

It starts up front and I have no problem with drafting OL in the first round. I prefer it.

But on defense, adding Hageman as a rotational DT when we have major weaknesses at one OLB spot, and all through the secondary, is not the best way to catch the other guys in our division.

I would much rather have a guy like Mack. That would give us a dynamite front 7. I'd also prefer a FS like Pryor to a DT. Plug Pryor in from day one and watch him make plays in the secondary along side McD JR.

 

[BonifayRam]

Big holes to fill at OG, Safety, CB. I think drafting a DT in the first round to add depth would be a big mistake.

I have always been a strong believer that you should always draft the big ugly OL'ers /DL'ers high & often. In the trenches games are won.

 

[jjab360]

As do I. It would be to start.

Over Langford? I doubt it.

 

[BonifayRam]

Understandable. I am not so totally sold on Matthews that if a trade down came I wouldnt take it, I would. I list Matthews because he is the generally the highest rated guy at the position. Cases can be made for other guys................

Some things that I like about Jake Mathews is he can do much of the same things that Saffold did for us in 2013 @ a much lower cap cost. Lets just for example that when they surgically open up Longs knee they find that those previous knee injuries in college & with Miami Long has other issues of missing cartilage or tears of such...MRI's do not show all things great & small....Matthews could either start @ OLT or start @ ORT if Barksdale is swung left. If things go perfect (things never do by the way) then Matthews could start @ either vacant open OG post & be the teams first swing OT in case of injury. Now you have the third OT in place NOW in 2014 so when Barksdale goes UFA in 2015. Jake is most likely the most NFL ready propect OL'er in this draft by far. Proper Planning makes Predictable Performances. If Saffold signed back with us the Rams would still have great need of Jake Mathews.

To me it doesn't get much more key than LT and DT.

I agree Rams are missing a back up @ OLT & ORT. It's very hard to find swing OT's in the NFL. Most teams have a back up for each. When your trying to unset the Seahawks & 9ers you better have some outstanding interior DL'ers able to stop the run. Rams are set @ DE but our top DT reserve is Cudjo who will be a UFA in 2015...could easily be upgraded.

 

[fearsomefour]

Makes sense

 

[fearsomefour]

Over Langford? I doubt it.

Im saying that would be the objective. Langford is solid. You would spend a first round pick on a DT to replace him if you thought the guy was a special player. A team should not be drafting any player in the first round with idea that he is a rotational player.

 

[jjab360]

Im saying that would be the objective. Langford is solid. You would spend a first round pick on a DT to replace him if you thought the guy was a special player. A team should not be drafting any player in the first round with idea that he is a rotational player.

If there was a DT in this draft that I thought was a truly special player then I would be all for it. I'm just not that high on Hageman, though I think he can be a solid player in the NFL.

 

[fearsomefour]

If there was a DT in this draft that I thought was a truly special player then I would be all for it. I'm just not that high on Hageman, though I think he can be a solid player in the NFL.

Fair enough. That is how I feel about the QBs. If Hageman or any other DT graded out as solid I wouldnt draft him in the first two rounds.

 

[jjab360]

Fair enough. That is how I feel about the QBs. If Hageman or any other DT graded out as solid I wouldnt draft him in the first two rounds.

Me + You = Same Page

 

[fearsomefour]

Me + You = Same Page

And here I thought you were bagging on my pick....but, I agree with the approach for sure. Quality with those picks regardless of position. Which is the argument for taking Clowney at 2 if we dont trade down.